SCOTUS rules against Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled against a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors in an 8-1 decision on Tuesday.
The Court held that the law violated the First Amendment by discriminating against certain viewpoints.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, argued that because the law prohibited therapists from using “talk therapy” to help minors change their sexual orientation or preferred gender identity — while still allowing them to provide therapy that affirmed those “identities” — it was a content-based restriction on speech rather than a simple regulation of medical conduct.
“But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering the truth,” the majority court opinion stated.
“The fact that the State’s viewpoint regulation falls only on licensed health care professionals does not change the equation. The First Amendment protects the rights of all to speak their minds,” the majority’s statement continued.
Kaley Chiles, who was identified by the court as having a Master’s degree in clinical mental health and a state counseling license in Colorado, had raised a challenge to the law on First Amendment grounds as it applied to her talk therapy practices.
“Kaley is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado. She is a committed Christian who seeks to live out her faith in every aspect of her life, including her work. Kaley started her career working with clients who had experienced trauma. She has since branched out into other areas, including supporting clients experiencing issues such as addiction and personality disorders. Her clients come to her with a variety of personal goals. Some seek freedom from sexual behaviors such as pornography use. Others wish to become more comfortable with their biological sex,” according to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
“Many of Kaley’s clients share her Christian faith. In fact, it’s often why they seek help from her, as opposed to other counselors with a secular worldview … But the state of Colorado is trying to force its way into these private counselor-client conversations—all in violation of Kaley’s freedom of speech,” the conservative legal advocacy group added.
The court opinion noted that although the term “conversion therapy” conjures images of physical examples, such as “electric shock” therapy, the Colorado law bans any practice that seeks “to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Chiles held that she only provides talk therapy and does not employ any physical techniques or medications, according to the court document. Rather, she discusses the goals of her clients, and forms counseling methods based on what would most benefit them, “seeking throughout to respect her clients’ fundamental right of self-determination.”
The 2019 Colorado law prohibits licensed counselors from engaging in conversion therapy with minors.
The term definition includes practices or treatments attempting to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual, as well as efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic same-sex attraction, the court noted.
The opinion document highlighted that acceptance and support of “identity exploration and development,” including assisting individuals in undergoing gender transition, is explicitly allowed by the law.
“As applied to Ms. Chiles, Colorado’s law regulates the content of her speech and goes further to prescribe what views she may and may not express, discriminating on the basis of viewpoint,” the opinion stated.
On the flip side, Justice Ketanji Jackson issued a dissenting opinion in which she claimed that the majority medical consensus finds conversion therapy to be “ineffective and harmful,” emphasizing the context of acting in a professional capacity.
“Under our precedents, bedrock First Amendment principles have far less salience when the speakers are medical professionals and their treatment-related speech is being restricted incidentally to the State’s regulation of the provision of medical care,” Jackson stated in her opinion.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also offered a concurring opinion in which they recognized discrimination based on viewpoint, but specified that a “viewpoint-neutral law” would “raise a different and more difficult question.” While Kagan and Sotomayor agreed with the conservative majority, they did so for a specific, narrower reason — viewpoint discrimination.
Meanwhile, more than twenty states have passed similar laws, with many outlets noting the decision could have broader effects. By delivering this Tuesday ruling, SCOTUS reportedly overturned the lower circuit court’s decision and sent the case back for further proceedings aligned with the High Court’s new guidance.
“When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. I look forward to being able to help them when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies,” Chiles said, according to a Tuesday press release from the Alliance Defending Freedom.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment